Author: Brian Katz
Date: 11:57:00 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 14:33:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 30, 2003 at 14:27:01, Brian Katz wrote: > >Brian use the 6 men pawnless for this idiot position and you will >see a mate much sooner. > >>Do any programs out there find mate in less than 80 moves? >> >>The winning idea after winning black’s queens, is to corral the Knights, win two >>of them, and then get into a K+B+B vs K+N 5 piece Tablebase endgame, which in >>some positions, require at least 74 moves. Perhaps more. >>If you don't have the 5 piece Tablebases, your program probably will not find >>mate. You will need at least the 5 piece endgame mentioned above. >> >>You may need to set the Tablebase Depth to a setting of 0 rather than the >>Default setting of 3. >> >>[D]n5Kn/8/7k/B6n/8/2B5/2Bq4/4q3 w >> >>Analysis by Fritz 8: Tablebase Depth set at 0. >>Hardware: AMD Athlon XP 2600+ 1 Gig DDR SDRAM >> >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Nd5 5.Bb3 Ne7 6.Beg3 >> +- (7.22) Depth: 7/12 00:00:00 18kN, tb=45 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Nd5 5.Bb3 Ne7 6.Beg3 >> +- (7.22) Depth: 8/14 00:00:00 26kN, tb=46 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Nd5 5.Bb3 Ne7 6.Beg3 >> +- (7.22) Depth: 9/16 00:00:00 42kN, tb=71 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Be4 Nd5 6.Bxd5 Kxf4 >> +- (7.22) Depth: 10/21 00:00:00 88kN, tb=220 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Be4 Nc4 6.Beg3 Kh5 7.Kg7 >> +- (7.28) Depth: 11/21 00:00:00 197kN, tb=529 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nd5 6.Bb3 Nc3 7.Be6+ Kf3 >>8.Be5 >> +- (7.28) Depth: 12/23 00:00:00 467kN, tb=1594 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nd5 6.Be5 Kf3 7.Bfd4 Ne3 >>8.Bd3 >> +- (7.31) Depth: 13/25 00:00:00 1018kN, tb=4800 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nd5 6.Be5 Kf3 7.Bfd4 Ne7 >>8.Bd3 Nd5 >> +- (7.41) Depth: 14/26 00:00:02 2134kN, tb=11604 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nd5 6.Be5 Kf3 7.Bfd4 Nb4 >>8.Bf5 Nd5 9.Kg7 >> +- (7.44) Depth: 15/29 00:00:04 4887kN, tb=31168 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nd5 6.Be5 Kf3 7.Bfd4 Nb4 >>8.Bf5 Nd5 9.Kg7 Nf4 >> +- (7.50) Depth: 16/29 00:00:09 10238kN, tb=72603 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Bf2 Nc4 6.Be4 Nb2 7.Bd4 Nc4 >>8.Kg7 >> +- (7.56) Depth: 17/32 00:00:25 26904kN, tb=234367 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (7.84) Depth: 18/33 00:00:34 36314kN, tb=355809 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (8.13) Depth: 18/35 00:00:54 57493kN, tb=596406 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Ba5 Nd7 5.Kxh8 Nc5 6.Bb6 Nd7 7.Kg7 Kg4 >> +- (8.16) Depth: 18/35 00:01:02 66117kN, tb=688821 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (8.44) Depth: 19/37 00:01:09 73772kN, tb=767130 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (8.72) Depth: 19/37 00:01:10 74411kN, tb=798334 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (9.28) Depth: 19/37 00:01:12 76918kN, tb=865923 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Ba5 Nc4 5.Kxh8 Kg4 6.Bd1+ Kf5 7.Be2 Nb2 >>8.Bc1 Na4 9.Ba3 Ke4 10.Bd1 >> +- (9.59) Depth: 19/40 00:02:17 156703kN, tb=1772123 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (9.88) Depth: 20/39 00:02:28 168406kN, tb=1892491 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (10.16) Depth: 20/39 00:02:30 171306kN, tb=1973122 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Ba5 Nc4 5.Kxh8 Kg4 6.Bac7 Kf3 7.Bc1 Ke2 >> +- (10.22) Depth: 20/39 00:04:10 291849kN, tb=3152989 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (10.50) Depth: 21/37 00:04:33 317648kN, tb=3419102 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Ba5 Nc4 6.Bac7 Kf3 7.Bc1 Ke2 >>8.Be4 >> +- (10.56) Depth: 21/40 00:09:02 634177kN, tb=7029727 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (10.84) Depth: 22/39 00:09:45 683693kN, tb=7568689 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (11.13) Depth: 22/39 00:09:52 691043kN, tb=7790120 >>1.Bxd2+! >> +- (11.69) Depth: 22/39 00:09:53 692672kN, tb=7915129 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Ba5 Nd7 6.Bd8 >> +- (#80) Depth: 22/42 00:15:05 1096525kN, tb=12784411 >>1.Bxd2+ Nf4 2.Bxf4+ Kh5 3.Bxe1 Nb6 4.Kxh8 Kg4 5.Ba5 Nd7 6.Bd8 >> +- (#80) Depth: 22/42 00:15:24 1119467kN, tb=12908527 >> >>(Katz, Eatontown 30.12.2003) >> >>Brian Yes it is an idiot position, but many puzzles are !! I do not have the 6 piece pawnless Tablebases yet. Still deciding if it is really worth it. Since I still have a Dial up connection, it would take far too long to download. What is your opinion on the need for 6 piece pawnless endings? I would much prefer to have 6 piece Tablebases involving 1 or more pawns. Such as K+p+p vs K+N+p or K+p+p+p vs K+R, K+B, or K+N or KPP vs KPP etc. They would be more practical. As far as idiot positions are concerned, how often do you see 6 piece pawnless endigs come up in real chess?? Brian
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.